Week 8 - Cosmological and Design arguments

This week we have been discussing the cosmological and design arguments in favor of the existence of God. While philosophical arguments can sometimes cause people to question their religious convictions, many focus only on those arguments that bolster the beliefs they have an emotional investment in. Hopefully the study of philosophy is helping me toward a greater understanding of what I believe and don't believe and will perhaps assist me in questioning those things that I have accepted blindly in the past or help me discover ways of thinking that never occurred to me before.

Theologian Thomas Aquinas made a cosmological argument generalizing from the observation that all events have some cause. He reasoned that all events either must be classified as uncaused or "caused to exist by another". He then reasoned that there "cannot be an infinite regress of causes", so the "uncaused first cause" must be God.  I’m not sure why it would make sense that there can’t possibly be “an infinite regress of causes” and that God is uncaused unlike all other events. I think the only basis for this line of reasoning is Aquinas’ strong desire to make God’s existence necessary and provable in accordance with his belief structure.

Clergyman and philosopher William Paley makes the teleological argument (design argument) that the complexity of nature and seeming order of the universe show that it is probable that “a purposive intelligent will” brought these things into being. Again, Paley’s desire to find proof to justify his belief in God causes him to ignore those aspects of nature that do not appear to show evidence of purpose or intelligence, at least in the sense that we humans can understand. Random genetic mutations that are unsuccessful as a useful adaption, the cruelty of nature, the preference that is given to organisms with the most useful traits for a specific environment as opposed to those with the most complexity or intelligence, seems to conflict with the understanding that many people have of a benevolent, ethical God.

One thing that hasn’t been discussed in these arguments is the nature of the God that we are talking about. The God of the christian bible is one that sometimes mirrors the indifference of nature. Good people, like Job, are punished. All of humanity, except Noah and his family, and most animal species are wiped out in a flood. I think this is yet another example of human beings trying to fit their desire for an all knowing being that can take care of them and provide a meaning for existence into the imperfect world that we observe around us, which includes lots of suffering and doesn’t seem fair.

I’ve often wondered if you could, as an alternative to the biblical God, say that God is the order of the universe or that evolution is in itself a type of intelligence. The Bible says that God made man in his own image, but I think it’s the other way around. Humans must describe the world in human terms because we can’t see it from another perspective. Human consciousness is a special thing, but we don’t have a complete monopoly on consciousness. There are many different types and levels of awareness in other animals and plants. Maybe one could even say that consciousness itself is an aspect of God. Maybe through our conscious self-awareness, we ourselves must take the responsibility for manifesting the benevolence of the God that so many people hope exists. Of course, many would argue that the word God loses significance if we try to include too much under that heading.

Faith is not discussed in these philosophical arguments. I think that faith is a visceral sense that things are or must be a certain way even though there is no observable evidence that you can point to. This is not something one can argue about because it is so subjective. Perhaps mystical, religious experiences and faith are the only ways to touch or describe aspects of existence that are beyond human description.

Week 6 - Functionalism, Artificial Intelligence and Consciousness

I would agree that humans are, in a manner of speaking, programed by society - similarly to the way that computers are programmed. We come into the world with certain hardware. Our processing speed (intelligence), and the wiring of our brains is partially determined by our DNA. The quality control of the factory we are produced in (our home environment and the type of parenting we receive) is another factor. The family, community and country that we grow up in determine our belief systems and operating system (language). However, the similarity only goes so far. I think one of the major differences between a human and a computer is that that our hardware (brain) is actually changed by our software (societal programming).  It’s not as easy for us to alter or switch to a new software or operating system. For example, it becomes much more difficult to learn a foreign language, as an adult, once our brains have been hardwired.  Changing the way we do anything is hard once we have gotten used to a certain method. I have a feeling that artificial intelligence will progress more rapidly if it can incorporate the ability to evolve as biological species do or alter its own hardware, like the human brain does, based on experience. Maybe there is something in the intertwined nature of our hardware and software that encourages greater complexity.

This week’s study has gotten me pretty interested in Functionalism as a philosophy. The focus on the importance of the function of an object instead of its material composition has me intrigued. In functionalism, consciousness does not necessarily have to exist only in a carbon based life form. Consciousness could exist in a machine, in a brain composed of elements that don’t exist here on earth, or in some other form that we can’t even conceive of.

The idea occurred to me that we practice a kind of Functionalism when we refer to the self or the identity of any individual. Throughout the lifespan, we are continually changing our physical composition. We grow, we age, and the material composition of our bodies never stays the same. The cells that composed my body when I was an infant are long dead. I’m not even the same size. My thoughts and my memories are always changing too. Yet, there is some kind of continuity. I am still functioning as Renee even though I’m continually changing my form and material composition.

This week we learned about the “Turing test”, a method of determining whether or not an artificial intelligence has achieved the ability to think. The one thing that seems to be often discussed as a distinction between current artificial intelligence and human intelligence is emotion. No artificial intelligence has ever provided evidence of possessing emotion. If it ever did, this would be a marker of a major shift in consciousness. It would signify that there is some level of complexity happening that is on par with the human brain. Our class discussion about this got me thinking about autism. People diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder are often presented as having a lack of emotion and empathy and are impaired when it comes to  relating to other human beings.  Yet, no one would ever deny that they were fully conscious, thinking individuals. I’ve done a little bit of reading about this disorder and some autistic people on the more highly functioning end of the spectrum are able to verbalize how they experience emotion. It isn't true that they completely lack any emotions or empathy, they just experience them and display them very differently than most people.

The animal behaviorist, Temple Grandin, is autistic and became an expert in that field because she could identify strongly with the way animals, such as cows and horses, appeared to experience and respond to their environment. She felt more of a kinship with them than other humans. Many autistic people, Temple Grandin included, are savants. They have a remarkable, seemingly superhuman skill or ability in mathematics or computer programming or design or any number of other skills. The ability to relate to other human beings appears to be impaired seemingly in inverse proportion to their remarkable skills. I wonder if it always has to be that way. Perhaps as the fields of artificial intelligence and neuroscience continue to develop, we might find out more.

Week 5 - Dualism and Physicalism

This week we've been learning about the worldview of dualists (who believe that the mind is a separate entity from the body) and physicalists, who believe that there is no mind separate from the body and that what is commonly referred to as the "mind" is just the neurochemical activity of the physical brain.

I find myself leaning more toward the physicalist approach. I don't think we can deny or ignore all of the advances in the field of neuroscience, which continually provides more and more information about the brain. We don't understand everything about how the brain functions, but more is being revealed all of the time. The example of Phineas Gage, the nineteenth century man who lived through a severe brain injury (a metal rod being blown through his brain), shows just how inextricably linked the mind and brain are. Gage's entire personality and demeanor changed (for the worse) after the injury. The person that he had been no longer existed.

It makes me think of a relative of mine who suffered from Alzheimer's disease. We weren't that close and didn't see each other often, but I observed a change in his personality even before I knew that he had the disease. When I saw him last, before he died, he did not acknowledge me at all. He seemed to have forgotten that he ever knew me. The idea of a separate mind remaining intact while his physical brain was being destroyed, doesn't make sense.

I also had a conversation with someone recently about a relative of hers who had died of Alzheimer's disease. She commented, "It's a shame when the mind and the body don't go at the same time". I found myself thinking at that moment, where exactly would a dualist think that mind went? Are there disembodied minds floating around somewhere thinking about things?

On the other hand, the purely physicalist approach does leave something to be desired. It feels a little empty to me, like something is missing.  Even though we are constantly increasing our knowledge through science, we are continually running up against the limits of the human brain's capacity to understand. I'm leaving myself open to the idea that there are valid methods of  understanding reality other than in the scientific, physicalist sense. I suppose deep down that I have some strong emotional attachment to the possibility that there could be a mind that remains behind even when the brain dies. I guess that's what makes the dualistic approach so appealing to so many people.

Week 4 - Epistemology

This week we've completed our study of Pragmatism and Feminist Epistemology. I had no previous knowledge about the details of either of these branches of Philosophy. Although I was aware of the existence of William James and John Dewey, I had never before been exposed to their thinking . I was certainly aware of Feminism, but only in the sense of political and social activism, not as a method of understanding the nature of knowledge itself.   Although epistemology in general is new to me, I found many of my own ways of thinking mirrored in the words of these philosophers (although they said it better, and in a more organized fashion).  Pragmatism and feminist epistemology seem very sensible to me because the context of knowledge is discussed as an important factor. I have long thought also that any kind of philosophy is only meaningful to the extent that it has an impact on the way we live our lives.   I, as a female of african american, caucasian and carribean ancestry, necessarily have a different view of the world than someone who does not have my background. However, those aspects of gender and race do not account for every aspect of my thinking. I think that my genetic makeup, temperament and life experience also cause me to see life through a very specific lens.   Pragmatism's notion of "truth" (warranted assertibility) as a thing that is not stagnant makes a lot of sense to me. It is more of a context oriented process, not a fixed answer or destination. As human beings at this stage of history, we have specific limitations and life experiences, which in turn have an effect on how we see reality. Certain things that are generally seen as true now, may not be seen as true in the future. However, I would stop short of stating that everything is relative and one opinion is as valid as any other. I find myself thinking that certain truths are necessarily better than others, but I leave myself open to changing my opinions should new information become available. I think that the process of gaining knowledge is one of active engagement with the world, not merely an intellectual exercise.   I have in the past done some thinking about whether or not you can judge the validity of a philosophy or religion by judging the way that a practitioner lives his/her life. From my own very subjective point of view, I have not really seen so much of a correlation.  I have admired the lives of people of widely varying philosophies. In my own family of mostly christian religious people, I have seen wonderful examples of compassion and generosity, but I've also seen the same thing in the few self-identified atheist members of my family. They each do what works for them. I like William James' statement that "all men will insist on being spoken to by the universe in some way" -  their own unique way.   I recently went to see a film called "Higher Ground" about a woman's struggle to understand the depth of her christian faith. She ends up coming to terms with the fact that she can't force herself to believe everything that her husband and other members of their tightly knit christian community have accepted as truth. It causes a very uncomfortable conflict with people she cares a great deal about. She will always be one of those individuals who cannot have any certainty about God. It's just who she is. It makes me think about William James' effort to relieve his depression (about the seeming meaninglessness of a life controlled by predetermined forces) by making a very conscious decision that he did in fact have free will. As someone who has struggled with depression, I know from personal experience that my thoughts have a strong impact on how I experience my life. However James' strategy would not work for me. I don't feel capable of making a decision that something is "true" because it would make my life better. I would need some kind of "external" verification. I have often thought that life is in a sense easier for devout christians who believe in heaven and a fatherly being watching over them,  but I could never decide that such a thing is "true" because it is more expedient to do so.